Talk:Mounir Majidi

Removal of "Controversy" section

• Below text copied from my talk page --Tachfin (talk) 11:06, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The first point, in the intro, I was clarifying what was otherwise uncommon English wording. Also, I found English sources that replaced information reinforced by a French source. In WP:A, it shows that WP:V § Non-English sources aren't preferable because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of readers in the English-language, sources should be used in preference to foreign-language sources, provided they are otherwise of equal suitability, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly.

I wanted to address the changes I made to the article, and explain why I'm hitting "undo" on your deletions and certain additions. As to the "unexplained removal of content," on the second point, the biography, the <ref>{{cite news|title=PALACE COERCION PLAGUES MOROCCO'S REAL ESTATE SECTOR|url=http://dazzlepod.com/cable/09CASABLANCA226/?q=Mounir%20Majidi|accessdate=14 August 2012|newspaper=Consulate Casablanca|date=Dec 11, 2009}}</ref> leads to a dead link. http://dazzlepod.com/cable/09CASABLANCA226/?q=Mounir%20Majidi Doesn't exist.

The same points I made about the intro can be attributed to undoing the 'Early Life,' and 'Business' sections, your changes aren't explained or justified, as you're using French sources, again against WP:A to remove three entire paragraphs of my contribution using reliable English sources. We can start a talk section under the page itself if you have any questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chewbakadog (talk • contribs)

As a general starting point, you cannot remove citations just because they are deadlink or not in English.

Your edit removed: Citations, relevant information and the whole "controversy" section. And is therefore unacceptable on multiple accounts:

1. You cannot remove refs even if they are non-English sources or dead links. (cf. WP:DEADREF and WP:NOENG)
2. Unless you have an argument, you cannot remove "negative" comments about the person. You did remove a reference to corruption allegations cited in official US diplomatic cables.
3. In the infobox you removed the official positions occupied by Mounir Majidi. Including the removal of predecessors and successors in these positions.
4. You emptied the "External links" section and placed an "empty" template instead.
5. You removed a relevant navigability template, which helps users browse relevant topics.

Additionally your edit introduced many punctuation mistakes and WP:PEACOCK formulations that are proscribed in this Encyclopaedia. (Example: those two companies became the armed wings of the national shift of the economy. Majidi’s mission is to establish a new economic governance around “national champions)

Also keep in mind that it is better to keep changes incremental rather than to introduce so many editorial modifications in one big edit. That is almost always going to be opposed.

Finally, please be aware of Wikipedia's WP:COI policy, as the subject of this article has a track record in Marketing/PR tricks. Tachfin (talk) 11:06, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. My goal here is to see if we can find some middle ground, rather than undoing entire revisions. I feel I add some information that's useful to the article. I reviewed both cf. WP:DEADREF and WP:NOENG and think we should try to hunt down that link http://dazzlepod.com/cable/09CASABLANCA226/?q=Mounir%20Majidi, and see if it's been placed elsewhere on the site.

1. Let's try to find some sources that back up the French ones in English. I've put a great deal of time looking, and haven't had much luck.
2. Thanks for the catch. Are there any English sites reinforcing this?
3. I just saw the infobox as a little cluttered, apart from the French, which is my understanding to be the main page of origin.
4. I'll review WP:EL
5. Can you help me understand which?

I'm not aware of the track record for this article, and I definitely keep WP:COI in mind. I appreciate the time you took to respond to me. Chewbakadog (talk) 00:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Further thinking on this matter leads me to disagree with you on many levels :

1. It is possible to remove deadlinks, mostly if they lead to a user-generated website such as dazzlepod ([1]), which is a potentially unreliable source (WP:PUS) and a self-publish source (WP:SELFPUBLISH). deadlink + WP:PUS + WP:SELFPUBLISH = out .
2. I'm actually removing something rather positive : saying that this guy is in the top 3 of the most influential people in Morocco is pretty flattering, don't you think ? + wikileaks' diplomatic cables were not "official statements", but informal communications between US agents.
3. Regarding the controversy, Maidi was accused by one journalist, who seems to be an opponent to the regime (Bemchemsi), in the opinion section of one national newspapers. The other source is a deadlink ([2]). According to WP:SOURCE, If a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer, and then Tiny-minority views need not be included, except in articles devoted to them. We have here the point of view of one person (Bemchemsi) published in the opinion section of one newspaper, which is a WP:YESPOV and needs to be removed. Also, a "controversy" section is created merely for this YESPOV, which is WP:UNDUE and needs to be removed.
4. I cannot find any info on the web that clearly states that this Majidi "has a track record in Marketing/PR trick", can you please provide proof of your statement ?
5. On the other end, you show signs of WP:BULLY by completely deleting my edit despite its accuracy. Frankly, I just used the french article (fr:Mounir Majidi) to rewrite the english article... Though you seem very knowledgeable and active on Morocco-related topics, you are not allowed to completely undo my edit.
6. You say it is better to keep changes incremental rather than to introduce so many editorial modifications in one big edit. That is almost always going to be opposed., which is absolutely not true if the edit is relevant and properly sourced. Could you show me a Wikipedia rule that says otherwise ?

--Chewbakadog (talk) 16:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I think I've stated clearly why I do not agree with your edit, which removed information & references from the article. It's not my opinion or my wishes but wikipedia has rules and guidelines, by which the community generally abides. You do not remove references and properly cited material just because you find it "disagreeable". Wikipedia is not a newspaper or a blog it just follows what others have said.

No the reference is not self-published, it is a US diplomatic cable. Dazzlpod is just a host not the reference.

You can re-read the policy I've quoted before regarding references; there is no obligation to put English sources instead of other languages. That is especially the case when there are no English sources to begin with.

The controversy section reports just one case of accusations of corruption that was widely reported about. It is not an anecdote and is duly referenced to two respectable publications (Le Monde & Lakome). It is a fact that Majidi was accused of corrupt practices. You have to provide a rationale based on Wikipedia policies to remove something that is factual and referenced. Your opinion regarding these accusations is not relevant. Additionally, there are a load of other accusations waived at Majidi (corruption, conflict of interest, threats, torture etc) by so many other people that can expand the controversy section.

The infobox looking "cluttered" to you is not a justification for removing relevant, factual, non-controversial and certainly very valuable information for this encyclopaedia.

What happens on French Wikipedia is of absolutely no concern here. WP:Puffery is not accepted on Wikipedia. Yes even if this kind of language may seem normal in a certain Moroccan press. It is not in an Encyclopaedia. (Again not my opinion but per Wikipedia guidelines WP:PEA) --Tachfin (talk) 17:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, no one said Wikipedia was a blog or a newspaper...

1. Dazzlepod is edited by its users, and the link is dead, so hardly verifiable (WP:V)... If the same document was hosted on scribd.com, we would be facing the same issue...
2. My latest edit included mainly french sources, taken from the french article, so I don't understand why you are still arguing about this.
3. If the accusation of corruption has been widely reported, can you please provide the sources (not Lakome as the link is broken and not verifiable)? I sense you are not neutral regarding this case : I don't see loads of accusations on the internet, can you please specify ? I am not expressing an opinion, I am merely picking up what I find on the Web (and removing what I don't find as prominent)...
4. I inserted the same infobox you have on your version, there is no disagreement there.
5. What happens on Wikipedia in general is of everyone's concern, but it seems you like having control over Morocco-related topics on the english wikipedia. I'm sorry, have I stepped in your living room ;-)

Some negative energy is sarting to settle in here, I consider your version as WP:ATTACK, could you please underpin my arguments one by one, and explain why you are discarding everything I edit, instead of simply blending it with the elements you find crucial ? Personally I think your version of the article is weak and adds little value to the topic... Thanks ! If you want to go through the WP:DRN, be my guest.

--Chewbakadog (talk) 18:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Imposing your version without going through the talk process ? I'll expose my arguments one by one, and hope that you will have the courtesy to reply :

1. It is possible to remove deadlinks, mostly if they lead to a user-generated website such as dazzlepod ([3]), which is a potentially unreliable source (WP:PUS) and a self-publish source (WP:SELFPUBLISH). deadlink + WP:PUS + WP:SELFPUBLISH = out .
2. I'm actually removing something rather positive : saying that this guy is in the top 3 of the most influential people in Morocco is pretty flattering, don't you think ? + wikileaks' diplomatic cables were not "official statements", but informal communications between US agents.
3. Regarding the controversy, Maidi was accused by one journalist, who seems to be an opponent to the regime (Bemchemsi), in the opinion section of one national newspapers. The other source is a deadlink ([4]). According to WP:SOURCE, If a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer, and then Tiny-minority views need not be included, except in articles devoted to them. We have here the point of view of one person (Bemchemsi) published in the opinion section of one newspaper, which is a WP:YESPOV and needs to be removed. Also, a "controversy" section is created merely for this YESPOV, which is WP:UNDUE and needs to be removed.
4. I cannot find any info on the web that clearly states that this Majidi "has a track record in Marketing/PR trick", can you please provide proof of your statement ?
5. On the other end, you show signs of WP:BULLY by completely deleting my edit despite its accuracy. Frankly, I just used the french article (fr:Mounir Majidi) to rewrite the english article... Though you seem very knowledgeable and active on Morocco-related topics, you are not allowed to completely undo my edit.
6. You say it is better to keep changes incremental rather than to introduce so many editorial modifications in one big edit. That is almost always going to be opposed., which is absolutely not true if the edit is relevant and properly sourced. Could you show me a Wikipedia rule that says otherwise ?
7. My latest edit included mainly french sources, taken from the french article, so I don't understand why you are still arguing about this.
8. If the accusation of corruption has been widely reported, can you please provide the sources (not Lakome as the link is broken and not verifiable)? I sense you are not neutral regarding this case : I don't see loads of accusations on the internet, can you please specify ? I am not expressing an opinion, I am merely picking up what I find on the Web (and removing what I don't find as prominent)...
9. I inserted the same infobox you have on your version, there is no disagreement there.
10. What happens on Wikipedia in general is of everyone's concern, but it seems you like having control over Morocco-related topics on the english wikipedia. I'm sorry, have I stepped in your living room ;-)

Again, I am accusing you of WP:ATTACK, so please underpin my arguments one by one instead of simply discarding everything in bulk, as this is not the proper attitude. Your latest undo of my version says that talk is ongoing, but I don't see your reply to my arguments so far...

--Chewbakadog (talk) 08:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

You are ignoring my points and replying beside the point. I think my points would be clear for 3rd parties. In particular, a dead link does not mean the source is not acceptable. Your accusation that the older version is an WP:Attack page is utterly ridiculous really, as is you, accusing me of "bullying" you, that's laughable. You seem eager to quickly drift from the topic to make comments about me (WP:APR) --Tachfin (talk) 10:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• DRN This issue was taken to DRN on 7 January 2015 by editor Tachfin. The case was opened for discussion on 10 January, but was closed on 27 January for lack of participation by editor Tachfin. Informative material may be found at its archive: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 106#Talk:Mounir Majidi. -- DRN volunteer Bejnar (talk) 20:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

On the deletion of passages in the biography

So that we might reach a compromise, I think we should categorize our disagreements with two main points:

1. The passages you've undone WP:PEACOCK formulations)

2. The controversy over the corruption charges

Let's focus on the first point. Here are my observations for each section:

Presentation of Mounir Majidi:

You deleted this passage , including his affiliation as ‘’President of the FUS,’’ yet shockingly, you kept source (5).

Moreover, I don’t see why we should be adding the phrase referring to Mounir Majidi as ‘’as one of the top-3 most influential people in Morocco,’’ since we can’t verify that information and that isn’t being said by reliable press sources.

Early Life:

Deleting the passage about Mounir Majidi’s studies is completely unjustified. These are all factual, well sourced elements that offer a more precise look into a more true biography.

Personal secretary of King Mohammed VI / Other Activities:

I added factual information about the career of Majidi, cited by many French sources as well as the French Wikipedia page. The successes mentioned on the page are referenced from and supported by numerous articles with reliable sources, and do not create a conflict with WP:PEACOCK. This is much in the way that argumentation, negative or otherwise, does not constitute act of denigration when supported by numerous articles. However, if you feel that some areas need to be reformulated, why not propose a new version? All you've done is undo my additions without bothering to amend them. This practice makes it impossible to negotiation or compromise. I think we all have an essential duty to discuss the page, and by just hitting undo, you harm the quality of the page, which is already very incomplete. Wikipedia is a place of the exchange of ideas and debate. I propose that you list the details the page that you have a problem with. This will help us all continue to enrich the page and come to a compromise.

Neutrality: Majidi's PR agents dwelling this page

I think it should be obvious by now, and in light of the recent Panama papers/Swiss Leaks (and the ton of other mess Majidi has involved himself in), that Majidi/his legions of multi-million $ lawyers, have resorted to PR agents (namely the account user:Chewbakadog whose only activity so far on Wikipedia is dwelling this page/similar dubious West Africa businesspeople/politicans). This account, being probably paid for doing so, has invested an incredible energy and (almost religious) dedication in trying to prevent my edits to this page, and lawyer their way around wiki policies, in lengthy discussion, for which I, as an "unpaid" simple contributor has no time for. Such a shame Wikipedia has become so easy to game. --Tachfin (talk) 11:39, 7 April 2016 (UTC)